Forum:Consistency
Ok, I know I'm quite new here, but I'm a bit at odds with where to begin. I see that there is a lack in consistency regarding the episode pages. I was comparing two in particular: *Beware the Creeper *Heart of Ice Both of these seem to have some basics that are the same, such as the inclusion of cast and a summary of the events, but they way they are displayed is very different, such as one says 'Plot' and the other says 'Summary'. Small things like that are very disconcerting. Which is standard? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelMogg (talk • ) . :Actually I've been thinking about the very same thing a few days ago. The guidelines for Episodes we laid down very early by founder of this wiki. I don't believe they had any input from the community. Further, for some reason, editors here never put too much focus onto episodes, so those pages were somewhat overlooked and neglected. However, recently, User:MrWhitman have been User:Crouchbk transferring their work from Wikipedia, which has a standardized format for Episodes, so we basically sort of adopted that standard by inference. The format I'm referring to is the same used in "World's Finest." I agree we need consistency, so maybe we should work together to come up with official guidelines for Episode pages. ― Thailog 11:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC) ::Ah! Cool, thanks Thailog. That looks very nice and pretty standard. I love editing episodes more than anything else, so if I think of something new to add, I'll bring it up again, but for now, that's a good clear example of where to start. Now I just have to figure out how to format everything so 'purdy'.--MichaelMogg 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC) :::Not a problem. If I can help in any way, feel free to ask. ― Thailog 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Proposed New Sub-Section Ok, I don't want to be that kind of new guy who makes a hundred new threads, so I'll just tack this on here. I noticed on the 'World's Finest' example there is no place for goofs or continuity errors. I think it would be a good thing to have a section similar to that, but I'd suggest NOT calling it 'Goofs'. The only thing I can imagine is putting it under 'trivia', but that's not quite accurate. I know the encyclopedia is supposed to focus on 'first person' (in-universe) stuff more, but I think the more we can say about the show, the better the pages will be. Thoughts?--MichaelMogg 02:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC) :I like it. ― Thailog 08:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC) ::I've put one in the episode I've been working on and called it "inconsistencies". If anyone has a better term, let me know, otherwise, I'll just keep it as is.--MichaelMogg 09:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC) :::Sounds good. I'd say we ought to look to more established wikis for ideas. Have a look at http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Friday%27s_Child. Episode articles are from a "real world" perspective. Perhaps a "Continuity" sub-section of the "Background Information" section. --BoneGnawer 11:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC) ::::Good point. I changed the section to 'Background Information' with a sub-section of 'Production inconsistencies'. How does that sound?--MichaelMogg 13:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC) :::::Sounds good to me. ― Thailog 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Perspective This argument brings up a new question. Naturally, episode articles are from a "real world" perspective, seeing as it would be impossible to list cast list and other production details from an in-universe POV... However, I always looked at the recaps as the only part that should be in-universe. Like someone was witnessing in person the events seen in a episode... Like a reporter. That's why I use to remove stage directions and meta-references, and restrict them to footnotes. But, now I realized that every Episode recap is written in the Present Tense. Should they be written in the Past Tense, like character bios? I think that in-universe doesn't have to mean everything should be written in the Past Tense — it also has to do with those references to other episodes or other real-world info — but I can't really think of a reason to write recaps in the Present Tense and claim in-universe perspective... Should we write them in the Past Tense; keep it as it is (Present Tense and meta reference confined to footnotes), or write recaps like Wikipedia: Present Tense and real world info (In this episode...)? ― Thailog 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC) :According to Michael Swan's 'Practical English Usage', the present tense is commonly used to relate stories and summaries. It gives numerous examples including: ::Hamlet '''meets' the ghost of his father. It tells him . . . '' :It goes on to say that present progressive is used for things that are already happening before that point in time. For example: Michael Mogg comes into the room '''wearing' a blue sweater.'' :So, in short, I don't think we need to change everything either stylistically nor grammatically.--MichaelMogg 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC) ::Good. I knew we were doing it the right way — I just wasn't sure of why. Glad we're on the same page. : ) ― Thailog 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Questions about Format *I noticed in the Creeper's history there are two different uses of the Joker's name. One is 'The Joker' and the other is 'the Joker'. Which do we have as a standard, and also do we have to use the word 'the' whenever referring to him? :Actually there's also simply "Joker". This inconsistency started with ... In several episodes credit Mark Hamill was both credited as "The Joker" and simply "Joker"... In any case, I don't think the capitalized determinant is very correct... if at all. Dunno why. Just looks weird. ― Thailog 21:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC) ::Yeah, it does look very weird. Cool, thanks.--MichaelMogg 01:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) *I was also wondering about hyperlinking possessive names, like Batman's vs. Batman's. Which is the standard around here? I personally prefer the hyperlinked "'s" . . . it just looks better.--MichaelMogg 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC) :There's no hard and fast rule for this, but I think the most common form is "Batman's". I think it started as a matter of convenience, and then it became a matter of consistency. Using Batman's is much easier because you simply need to doubleclick one word and then link it, while if you use Batman's you must select the word, hover the apostrophe + S and then do the pipe trick... It seems rather unnecessary when you're doing the pipe trick for a work that's already there and could simply be liked as it is... Also, if the apostrophe + S is not part of the name, I don't think it should be part of the hyperlink... But it's just me... ― Thailog 21:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC) ::All right, I'll stick to the non-hyperlinked possessive form. Thanks.--MichaelMogg 01:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)